27/12/2018
The ban on hunting with foxes in the UK clearly has both its supporters and critics. The 14 years that have since passed have not seen any drop in the strength of feeling on both sides of the argument.
This seems to be highlighted each year after the Boxing Day 'Hunt'.
Anti-hunt protestors will not just turn up to try and disrupt the activity, but will share stories meant to empathise the barbaric nature of fox hunting.
I, personally, have viewed this from different angles.
As a child, living in the New Forest, I was really dismayed that I could not join the hunt saboteurs in trying to get in the way of fox hunts. This was long before fox hunting became illegal.
Some time after that, having met people working in various countryside occupations, I recognised that there were reasons to try and keep the number of foxes under control.
I'm not saying that this meant I supported barbaric methods of culling foxes. It is just that I recognise there are wider considerations. What about the lives of the animals ripped apart by the foxes themselves? There are so many arguments and counter-arguments on this subject and they each have some merit.
On balance, I remain in favour of the ban on using hounds to hunt for foxes.
However, I do not think this means the end of the 'horse and hound' activities across the country. Chasing foxes with hounds has been banned since 2005 and hunt organisers say the tradition continues solely as 'trail hunting'; where a scent is laid by hand for hunters to follow.
Prior to the Hunting Act in 2005, there were two types of hunting; lethal and non-lethal. The non-lethal version is called 'drag hunting', a sport which looks pretty much the same in terms of the uniforms, horses and dogs. Drag hunting has been around since the early 1800s and involves the hounds being trained to follow an artificial scent. There are rarely incidents of animals being killed by drag hunts, and no one is trying to ban drag hunting.
When lethal hunting was banned, hunts that wanted to continue hunting legally could have switched to drag hunting, but they didn’t. Instead, they invented trail hunting. Whilst there are similarities to drag hunting, there are key differences. The key difference is the fact that hounds are still trained to follow an animal-based scent. As a result, the hounds can pick up the scent of a real animal, chase it and kill it. The claims by hunts that such deaths are accidents would appear to be disingenuous. It is however apparently difficult to prosecute hunts for illegal hunting, as the burden of proof would be on the prosecutors to prove that such deaths weren’t accident.
I have actually approached a couple of hunts seeking clarification as to why trail hunting was adopted from 2005, rather than drag hunting. When I get a response, I will update this post.
As a final point, I should state that I am not against ALL blood sports. As a meat eater, I think that would be rather hypocritical. I am against killing for 'fun'. I am also against killing for 'sport', where the end produce is not served up on a plate for hungry souls. If you fish, for example, and either eat the fish yourself or sell it onto a restaurant (or shop), I have no issue. I probably wouldn't be offended if you attend a pheasant shoot, based on the fact that the birds are extremely unlikely to be left to waste.
Hunting in order to mount a trophy on a wall, or a photo of the kill, or for the animal's pelt, skin or feathers, will never attract my support.
Comments